Consumer Commissions Have Power To Stay Execution Of Impugned Order If Appellant Files An Application Seeking It: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has observed that Consumer Commissions have inherent powers to stay execution of any order challenged via appeal if the appellant files an application for the same.

The Court was considering a Writ-Petition challenging the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the Petitioner by the District Consumer Commission as illegal and erroneous.

The single-bench of Justice C.S. Dias observed, "......notwithstanding the absence of a specific provision to stay the operation of an order passed by the District or State Commission, the Commissions have the inherent power to stay the operation of the impugned order, subject to the condition that the appeal is duly filed after depositing the statutory amount. Then, it will always be open to an appellant to move an application for the stay of the operation of the impugned order."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate R. Surendran while the Respondent was represented by Advocate C.S. Manilal.

The District Consumer Commission had allowed the complaint filed by the Respondent against the Petitioner under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission admitted the appeal and issued notice to the Respondent. As there is no provision in the Act to stay the operation and execution of the order, the Petitioner was precluded from filing such an application. However, the Respondent filed an execution application before the District Commission to execute the order. On receipt of the summons in the execution application, the Petitioner appeared through counsel and sought time to file her objections. Yet, without affording the Petitioner an opportunity to file an objection, the District Commission issued non-bailable warrant of arrest.

The District Consumer Commission, in a report, submitted that considering the Respondent's application stating compliance of its order by the Petitioner, it issued a summons to the petitioner under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Although the Petitioner appeared through Counsel, she did not state about the filing of the appeal and did not produce any order staying the operation of the order. As the petitioner failed to comply with the directions in order, the District Commission was constrained to issue warrant of arrest. 

The Petitioner contended that since there is no enabling provision, either under the Old Act or the New Act, to stay the operation and execution of the impugned order passed by the District Commission, the petitioner was precluded from filing a stay petition. The only requirement under the Old Act is to file an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order and to deposit 50% of the ordered amount or Rs.25,000/-, whichever is less. The Petitioner stated that since she has complied with the twin conditions, the operation and execution of the impugned order stand statutorily stayed by operation of law. Hence, the District Commission should not have issued warrant of arrest. 

The Court after considering relevant case laws concluded that Consumer Courts have inherent powers to stay execution of any order challenged via appeal if the appellant files an application for the same despite there being on specific provision in the Consumer Protection Act.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Dr. Shiny Antony Rauf vs. State Of Kerala And Others (2024:KER:98264)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate R. Surendran, Advocate S. Mayukha 

Respondent- Advocate C.S. Manilal, Advocate S. Nidheesh

Click here to read/ download Judgement: